The claims made by Jeff McMahon draw upon unqualified assessments made by Greenpeace and have little evidence to substantiate them. AREVA employees always strive to operate facilities with safety, security, and transparency as well as limit their impacts. The La Hague facility’s surrounding environment and population are subject to constant monitoring—under the supervision of the French Nuclear Safety Authority (an independent regulator akin to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission)—with updates and statistics provided to the general public almost daily. Click here for more information.

The facility has an ongoing policy for reducing the impact on health and on the natural environment, and AREVA makes major efforts in environmental monitoring with over a hundred samples and analyses are carried out every day. These include both marine sampling and land surveys. Click here for more information.

However far-fetched the claims made by McMahon, his post overlooks one important item—AREVA will provide a solution to treat most of the contaminated water from the damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant. The contaminated water must be treated rapidly as it is preventing Tepco from repairing the power plant’s power supply and cooling systems. This is not a question of creating risk or hazard for the region, but is instead a solution that draws upon AREVA’s expertise for treating and managing these elements.

For three weeks, AREVA has sent radioactive effluent treatment specialists to Japan to participate in work groups with Tepco. Backed by large teams in France, Germany and the United States, they proposed a method based on a co-precipitation concept. Developed by AREVA and used in the Marcoule and La Hague facilities, the process uses special chemical reagents to separate and recover the radioactive elements. AREVA will then draw on its expertise and solutions for treating and managing these elements.

AREVA also called on the skills of Veolia Water. A large-capacity treatment plant equipped with the co-precipitation process will be delivered by AREVA. This installation will sharply reduce the radioactivity levels of the treated water, which could be reused in the power plant’s cooling systems.

Other processes may be used in parallel with this solution, which is the most suited to the present emergency. It could be supplemented by other medium- and long-term actions.

This operation is part of the follow-up to the visit to Japan of the President of the French Republic.

Our visit began with a tour of the used nuclear fuel recycling AVEVA facilities in La Hague in the Normandy Region of France, followed by a tour EDF Flamanville 3 site to see the construction of the third and newest EPR™ reactor slated for completion in a couple of years. The dominant themes in my mind were recollection, marvel, harmony, and consternation.

AREVA's Community Advisory Council during their tour of Flamanville 3

Marvel – No one can visit either the Flamanville or La Hague site and not be amazed at the enormity of these capital intensive projects. So much concrete is being poured at Flamanville that it moves through pressurized pipelines.

Harmony – Both of these projects are situated at or near some of the most beautiful, natural coastal scenery in the world. The French Normandy Region has natural beauty as well as historic significance. Make no bones about it, these are industrialized, heavy industry sites. No one tries to paint them green or drape them in foliage to mask their physical appearance. Yet they do manage to coexist in harmony with the natural topography. In Flamanville‘s case, it is situated on the coastline atop a former site of a subsea iron mine, and can be seen from land only when physically at or near to the site.

Consternation – At La Hague, I had the same sense of consternation I experienced 15 years ago upon viewing the success of used fuel recycling: Why did the United States choose to abandon this technology pathway in the 1970’s as a way of managing its used fuel obligation, and how much have we paid in monetary and political capital by virtue of gridlock during the last two decades in managing our country’s used nuclear fuel? While I was excited to see the enormous technological advances offered by AREVA’s technology, I was left with a feeling of disappointment at the political incapability of the United States to choose a durable waste disposal strategy.

Postscript for the day: I took notice of the considerable security in the form of GGG (guns, gates, and guards) during the visit, something I didn’t do in my pre-9/11 visit years ago. Perhaps it’s because I was paying attention this time, but there seemed to be a lot more security infrastructure (concertina wire, etc.) than I recalled.

AREVA Tricastin/Visit to Georges Besse Unit 2

This was a highly informative visit to the AREVA’s fuel enrichment facility. I finally saw the differences between gaseous diffusion and centrifuge technologies for fuel enrichment. Although I knew that the latter was the more modern and less costly technology, this was my first opportunity to see it firsthand, and the infrastructure required, such as a concrete foundation capable of buffering seismic activity.

www.geestrategies.com

Watch the full episode. See more Need To Know.

The report explains that used fuel is the responsibility of the Department of Energy, who was supposed to being managing and receiving this used fuel for long term storage in 1998. Over a dozen years later, there has been little progress, and the Obama administration has declared that Yucca Mountain is “off the table.” Now the administration has pulled together the Blue Ribbon Commission to examine the options.

One of these options being considered by the commission is used fuel recycling. Addressed in the film only as an approach dropped by the United States during the Cold War, recycling has a returned as a potential safe, cost-effective solution. With enhanced technologies and over 40 years of experience, AREVA recycles nuclear fuel safely and effectively for dozens of customers around the globe.

Noting that new nuclear plant construction is actually one area where Obama has strong Republican support, the report brings up the concern that as our nation grows with the nuclear energy revival, so does the need to implement a solid plan for managing our used fuel. Recycling nuclear fuel does offer a solid option as part of an integrated plan for managing used fuel.

The clear call to action made in this piece is to raise public awareness of the issue and for Americans to advocate for action and a real long-term strategy for the United States.

To find out more about recycling, here is a video of our La Hague Recycling Facility where AREVA has had decades of safe and successful experience recycling used nuclear fuel.

An article in this week’s Science magazine, “Nuclear Waste: Knowledge Waste?” (subscription required) raises some very interesting questions about managing nuclear waste in the context of the nuclear renaissance now under way. Beyond recounting the history and current state of U.S. waste management (which should be well known to readers of this space), it focuses on the “often-overlooked” social science aspects of formulating a strategy for the future.

The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, according to its charter, was formed “to conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle.” The Science article offers some advice to those involved:

The Blue Ribbon Commission, the DOE, and other responsible agencies should make the rebuilding of social trust and credibility central to their operations and their proposed strategies for waste management, then draw on the social sciences needed to fulfill these commitments.

The authors state that the panel is well positioned to begin overcoming “the problematic legacy it inherited,” but cautions that it should consider not only the technical requirements, but also take into account the social issues relative to nuclear waste. It concludes:

The strategy adopted by the commission will affect not only how its recommendations are judged but also how the public should be involved in subsequent policy and siting decisions. Addressing relevant social issues does not guarantee success, but ignoring them increases the chances of repeating past failures.

In related news, ThomsonReuters published a timely article Aug. 17 focusing on the potential for recycling entitled “U.S. nuclear waste issue could be solved if…” In fact, this article quotes yours truly saying: “It’s a perfect time to reconsider recycling for the U.S.,” and I have to say I agree with me. The piece also features some good photos of AREVA’s La Hague recycling facility.

Click here for more information on AREVA’s vision for recycling nuclear fuel in the U.S.

The cold crucible in workshop.

The principle of the cold crucible is to induce electric currents directly in the glass to raise its temperature without heating the crucible. The advantages of the technology include increased frequency of the vitrification, longer equipment life span, and the ability to vitrify wider range of products and reduce the volume of final waste.

Lauvergeon emphasized that “the cold crucible is an illustration of AREVA’s intention to continue and reinforce its research and development policy in order to continue to make innovation available to its customers.”

More information on this major technologic step forward here.

In an effort to green up the debate on recycling nuclear fuel, several anti-nuclear activists have decided recycle some old misinformation about the topic. In fact, recycling nuclear fuel has some distinct advantages to the once-through approach proposed in the U.S. and deserves consideration as a solid option for our country.

AREVA's La Hague Recycling Facility

As AREVA Executive V.P. Alan Hanson wrote in an op-ed last year, “Recycling nuclear fuel is a proven solution that makes waste management easier, conserves natural resources, is cost competitive and reduces proliferation concerns.”

So let’s hit a few of the largest myths being spread about recycling:

Myth: The volume of waste to be disposed in a deep geological repository is increased by recycling.

Reality: False. The volume of high-level waste for disposal would decrease by a factor of at least four. The toxicity of this waste would decrease by a factor of 10.

Myth: Recycling nuclear fuel is uneconomical.

Reality: Management of used nuclear fuel – whether you recycle or not – represents only 1 – 2% of the retail price of electricity generated by nuclear energy.  In addition , recycling offers other benefits in much the same way as recycling paper or glass costs provide other benefits.

Myth: The use of recycling would eliminate the need for a repository.

Reality: True. AREVA does not claim that recycling would eliminate the need for a repository. One would be required regardless of the used fuel management approach. But with recycling, the U.S. would avoid having to build more than one, perhaps forever.

Myth: Recycling has not been made commercial after decades of research and development.

Reality: AREVA has decades of experience recycling nuclear fuel safely, efficiently and economically for customers around the globe. Today, MOX fuel manufactured by AREVA is in use in 38 reactors in Europe and Japan. AREVA’s Back End business group, which includes recycling, last year posted revenue of about $2.2 billion.

Click here to take a virtual tour of AREVA recycling facility.

AREVA Recycling Facility in La Hague

The entire tour is available for viewing in the link below. We encourage you to send us your questions on this topic as this tour is just a beginning for open dialogue and discussion on recycling as an option for the United States.

Access to the video available here, please note that you will be asked to register.

Last week France’s TF1 television network featured AREVA’s innovative work under way in partnership with the U.S. National Cancer Institute and the University of Alabama for the development of a treatment to fight cancer.

The news team got to take a look inside AREVA’s La Hague Facility, in Normandy, where the idea of using AREVA’s expertise in nuclear engineering first came into being. The piece from TF1 also shows the important research and clinical testing underway with partners in the United States.

The clip is a great overview of this project, but unfortunately it’s in French. For those of you who are not fluent, there’s a cheat-sheet with a translation of the video right here (PDF).

AREVA Med, an AREVA subsidiary, is developing innovative methods for the production of the Lead-212 radio-isotope. This isotope has shown to be very promising in tests when used in the targeting therapy called Alpha radio-immunotherapy (Alpha-RIT). Alpha-RIT is a very powerful anti-cancer therapy that works by binding an isotope, like Lead-212, to a monoclonal antibody. Using the body’s own antigens, this treatment targets only cancer cells and destroys them using the high energy of Lead-212. While Alpha-RIT has potential to treat numerous types of cancers, including those that don’t respond well to chemotherapy or radiation, these radio-isotopes have traditionally existed in very limited quantities, hindering the development of new scientific treatments. This is why AREVA has focused on an isotope production method, to make sure Lead-212 is available for cancer research and future treatments.

• More about the AREVA Med project